While other MediaPost newsletters and articles remain free to all ... our new Research Intelligencer service is reserved for paid subscribers ...

Subscribe today to gain access to the every Research Intelligencer article we publish as well as the exclusive daily newsletter, full access to The MediaPost Cases, first-look research and daily insights from Joe Mandese, Editor in Chief.

Uber Can't Shake False Advertising Claims

In a blow to Uber, another federal
judge in California has refused to dismiss a lawsuit accusing the company of engaging in false advertising by promoting its ride-sharing service as safer than taxis.

U.S. District Court Judge
Cathy Ann Bencivengo in the Southern District of California rejected Uber's arguments that statements touting its service were "puffery" -- meaning that they were the kinds of exaggerations that
wouldn't be relied on by consumers.

The ruling came in a false advertising complaint filed last year by Delux Cab, which operates seven taxis in San Diego.

Delux pointed in its
complaint to several statements by Uber, including an April 25, 2014 blog post by Lane Kasselman, former head of communications for the company. "Unlike the taxi industry, our background checking
process and safeguards are consistent across the United States and often more rigorous than what is required to become a taxi driver," Kasselman allegedly wrote.

advertisement

advertisement

The complaint also noted that
between April 2014 and March 2016, Uber charged a $1 "safe rides fee" to people using the Uber X service.

Uber asked Bencivengo to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the statements weren't
actionable. She rejected those arguments, noting that a different federal judge, Jon Tigar in the Northern District of California, ruled in a separate case that L.A. Taxi Cooperative could proceed
with similar claims against Uber.

"As noted by Judge Tigar, many of the alleged statements do include 'specific' assertions that seem to describe 'absolute characteristics' of Uber's services
that could be tested," Bencivengo wrote. "As further noted by Judge Tigar, a reasonable consumer reading these statements in the context of Uber's advertising campaign could conclude that an Uber ride
is objectively and measurably safer than a ride provided by a taxi or other competitor service."

But not all judges have sided against Uber on whether its boasts amount to false advertising.
U.S. District Court Judge Frederic Block in Brooklyn dismissed two taxi companies' lawsuit against Uber last September, ruling that its safety boasts weren't actionable.

"No doubt, these
statements are intended to convey the impression that Uber takes the safety of its passengers seriously. But they do so in terms that clearly fall within one or more of the accepted definitions of
puffery," Block wrote. "The overall tone is boastful and self-congratulatory."

Last year, Uber agreed to pay $25 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by law enforcement officials in
Los Angeles and San Francisco, who accused the company of false advertising and adding extra fees to consumers' bills. The company also reached a $28.5 million settlement with consumers over claims of
misleading ads and fees.